U.S. Presidential Election 2016

[Fonz]

Allen West is funny though. I feel like a broken record saying this but people on opposing sides of the aisle have legitimate grievances and beliefs that perhaps aren't the retard perception you have of them, otherwise it would be, uhh...retarded. And I know you aren't so stupid that you legitimately believe the opposing side of the isle is actually the cartoon depiction you have in your mind of them.

Diablo's generalization was a bit hasty, but today's conservatives are the ones to blame for that caricature. Instead of being people who advocate civil liberties and focus on conserving institutions they consider good, they just rage at modernity, progress and social movements. What the hell does that have to do with conservatism? That's being reactionary, plain and simple. Michael Oakeshott was a conservative; people like Trump are just lunatics.

Edited May 8, 2016 by Black_MiD

[X S]

The issue is that they are gibberish

 

Thomas Jefferson wore the tiniest pants possible at all times, presumably so everyone could see his genitals

 

Their political musings were trash.

 

stupid American vernacular

 

You expect me to respect your position, and you respond with this?

 

Why do I even bother?

 

A viewpoint does not disappear because it isn't recognised by power. CNN can exclude who they like, but political discussions occur in pubs and living rooms in every town and city. There is a far-left, because there are far left activists and intellectuals in America, they just aren't invited onto Real Time With Bill Maher.

 

Also of note is that mainstream American politics does have a left wing: your Amy Goodmans and your Ralph Naders who advocate socially just economic restructuring without affiliation with socialist movements. America also sees massive community organisation pushing for rent control, homeless advocacy, new community infrastructure and the like, mostly in black communities. These people exist and have a voice in America no matter how loud you crank the national anthem.

 

Alright, let's discuss the Communist Party of the US's presidential bid, or the seats they intends to grab in Congress this fall. Scratch that, let's discuss the Socialist Party, or perhaps the Democratic Socialists party making an impact on the this election?

 

*crickets*

 

By the way, I actually have tremendous respect for Nader, but he isn't running, so what's there to discuss? Should I just post videos of him commenting on the current election? Okay, then.

 

 

[Clem Fandango]

 

The issue is that they are gibberish

 

Thomas Jefferson wore the tiniest pants possible at all times, presumably so everyone could see his genitals

 

Their political musings were trash.

 

stupid American vernacular

 

You expect me to respect your position, and you respond with this?

 

Why do I even bother?

I mean I actually explained in detail why the terms are gibberish, why their political musing were worthless, so I don't know why you're acting like I'm just spitting on your shirt and throwing bottles at the wall. I made actual falsifiable claims that you have either ignored or failed to understand.

 

 

 

Alright, let's discuss the Communist Party of the US's presidential bid, or the seats they intends to grab in Congress this fall.

Communists don't make presidential bids, because they don't support the state. This is my issue: that you are incapable of even fathoming a conception of social change that doesn't involve the state.

 

I'm not asking you to discuss Communism, or to do anything really, I'm just pointing out that you are madly deeply in love with the American state.

 

 

 

By the way, I actually have tremendous respect for Nader, but he isn't running, so what's there to discuss?

I'm confused: I never asked you to talk about Ralph Nader, I'm just wigged out by the constant references to TJ and Johnny Locke as if everyone is on board for realising the founders dreams.

[X S]

I mean I actually explained in detail why the terms are gibberish, why their political musing were worthless, so I don't know why you're acting like I'm just spitting on your shirt and throwing bottles at the wall. I made actual falsifiable claims that you have either ignored or failed to understand.

 

They're "gibberish" because they simply don't fit your narrative. Guess what? You spelled "organisation" wrong. It's spelled organization. Please excuse my American exceptionalism. Oh please, I'm so sorry. Please forgive me.

 

Communists don't make presidential bids, because they don't support the state.

 

No true Scotsman, sir.

 

I'm just wigged out by the constant references to Karl Marx and Frederich Engles as if everyone is on board for realising their revolutionary dreams.

 

Yeah, just stop.

[Clem Fandango]

 

I mean I actually explained in detail why the terms are gibberish, why their political musing were worthless, so I don't know why you're acting like I'm just spitting on your shirt and throwing bottles at the wall. I made actual falsifiable claims that you have either ignored or failed to understand.

 

They're "gibberish" because they simply don't fit your narrative.

No, they're gibberish because they don't make logical sense. Again: If an anti-statist is someone who opposes one tiny aspect of the state than you are pretending the state doesn't otherwise exist. This is not reality: in the real world, states are a specific form of social organisation with specific effects and the English language needs to reflect that. Literally it's like using 'elephant' to refer to an elephant's trunk and just never talking about elephants.

 

It's not an issue of vernacular, it's an issue of meaning. It's not American English I have a problem with (the storage unit in the back of a car is indeed a type of trunk) it's warped, nonsensical definitions of words. If Americans decided to define bleach as a soft drink, that would be problematic cultural differences be damned.

 

 

 

No true Scotsman, sir.

I didn't say Communists involved in electoral politics aren't real Communists, I said Communists aren't typically involved in electoral politics. This is n uncontentious statement of facts.

 

 

 

I'm just wigged out by the constant references to Karl Marx and Frederich Engles as if everyone is on board for realising their revolutionary dreams.

I'm not a Marxist though that is besides the point. There's a difference between applying your views to a conversation(!), and being super intensely dogmatic to the point that you cannot recognise the existence of inconvenient facts or viewpoints. I don't interpret every statement as being based on leftist thought. I don't ignore liberalism, I simply reject its veracity.

[X S]

No, they're gibberish because they don't make logical sense.

 

Nomenclature is not inherently logical by any definition.

 

Literally it's like using 'elephant' to refer to an elephant's trunk and just never talking about elephants.

 

Politics are not akin to physical objects. The totality of politics should not be confined to, dare I say, traditionally Eurocentric spheres of influence that have perpetually re-positioned and reorganized themselves over the last several hundred years. Surely, the Left is not what it was during the time of the French Revolution. The political spectrum is constantly evolving. The whole argument is just silly, and I don't understand why non-natives can't just consider the "tongue" for what it is. If you came to the US, you wouldn't start driving on the left-hand side of the road, would you?

 

The US has basically benefited from being in an advantageous position following WWII, and thus there has been little reason for the political establishment to shift in any other direction other than to satisfy Europeans and their modern interpretations of the Left and collectivist ideas. For that to occur, some serious doubt about the modern system has to take a hold. That's why you have a guy like Bernie and Trump. Both have been in opposition to the liberalization and globalization of markets, basically putting the workers out of work.

[Triple Vacuum Seal]

I definitely see where you're coming from in regards to the differing connotations of "left" and "right" between the two sides of the pond. But it's dishonest to dismiss the left-right spectrum as just being regional vernacular. The dominant media organization's and publisher's failure to acknowledge certain elements on a spectrum does not affect the composition of that spectrum. Even as that spectrum evolves, it's still a global metric. In fact, the American academics who actually read and write politics acknowledge it as a global spectrum. Even to them, liberalism is center-right. Much like we do with economic matters, the general public discourse in American politics loves to disregard the professionals/experts for the sake of their own narrative.

 

There seems to be this misconception among conservatives that American political thought is inherently more hostile to leftist ideas. Such a view undermines history and fails to account for the once-prevalent anti-left propaganda from the Cold War. We have had several leftist movements in the US that were violently suppressed by a fearful government. Our mainstream information sources were directly prohibited from fairly reporting on these matters until recently.

[Svip]

The US has basically benefited from being in an advantageous position following WWII, and thus there has been little reason for the political establishment to shift in any other direction other than to satisfy Europeans and their modern interpretations of the Left and collectivist ideas.

Beneficial to whom? You mean the US state? Probably in the terms of influence. US companies? Sounds probable. But US citizens? Hardly. An enormous fraction of US federal spending is spent on defending or engaging in foreign affairs, that only slightly or not at all affect the lives of most Americans.

 

Speaking as a selfish European, I appreciate the US' large defence budget, because then European states can focus more on welfare than their military. But speaking as a European concerned for Europe and its future, I would wish our governments spent somewhat more on defence. But it's hard to argue while under the protection of the US.

 

But speaking with someone who cares about the citizens of the United States, this focus of money is not helpful for those citizens. Standards of living is generally higher in Europe, particularly Northern Europe, and while they may have a higher unemployment rates than the US, these states can generally afford higher unemployment rates. Yes, Southern Europe is in bit of a pickle. But you can't have welfare without proper tax collecting.

 

In short, yes US foreign policy the past 70 years have put the United States as a major global power that dominates or intervenes in almost every foreign crisis, but hardly any of that influence or power have trickled down to benefit US citizens.

[Clem Fandango]

 

No, they're gibberish because they don't make logical sense.

 

Nomenclature is not inherently logical by any definition.

okay? But if a term is useless and nonsensical, why use it?

 

 

 

Politics are not akin to physical objects.

Fine, then it's like if you called dog groomers 'the economy' and never recognised the existence of a wider economy. Is that more clear?

 

 

 

Surely, the Left is not what it was during the time of the French Revolution.

Because liberals were the left, and were then successful in establishing liberal states. At some point revolutionary socialism popped up to oppose liberalism in more or less the same way liberalism opposed the conservatism of the old regime. So no, the political spectrum is not 'constantly evolving.'

 

 

 

The whole argument is just silly, and I don't understand why non-natives can't just consider the "tongue" for what it is. If you came to the US, you wouldn't start driving on the left-hand side of the road, would you?

Because, as I have been trying to explain to you at length, the terms are useless and stifling. It is pointless to use 'liberal' in the American context because it just does not come up in conversation amongst people that aren't horribly confused; the term is too broad. Why would I need a term to refer to Obama and Noam Chomsky as having some contiguous political agenda? And I literally cannot have a political conversation without being able to refer to the ideology of the state.

 

f*ck.

 

 

 

The US has basically benefited from being in an advantageous position following WWII, and thus there has been little reason for the political establishment to shift in any other direction other than to satisfy Europeans and their modern interpretations of the Left and collectivist ideas.

What?

[Svip]

X S, I think what Melchior is trying to sell isn't a Eurocentric idea (even if popular in Europe). The problem with the terms 'liberal' and 'conservative' in US politics is that their meanings are too broad, they encapsulate way too many things. This further puts in question for what the hell a 'true conservative' is. Do you know? I am not even sure anymore.

 

The advantage of the right terms is that they are very rigid, and it is somewhat easy to decipher who is whom. In US politics, 'liberal' and 'conservative' basically mean 'left' and 'right' from a US spectrum perspective. Or put another way; 'Democrat' and 'Republican'. People just avoid saying that (even though that is what they mean), because they want to avoid party labels. And a 'conservative Democrat' is just a Democrat that votes Republican, so in practical terms a Republican.

 

But that is actually being unfair to US politics, because it is far more complicated than that. But the terms have gotten diluted and frankly useless. When Cruz talked about how he is the most conservative in the race, he might be right, but I still don't quite know what that means? That his voting record is basically mostly to the right of the spectrum? Why not say that then? That he is the most 'right wing' in the race? Or is 'conservative' just a buzzword for that these days?

 

If you think the US terms 'liberal' and 'conservative' are good enough, then you must also believe that every issue have two possible answers.

[Clem Fandango]

Conservatives kind of are a movement though with pretty specific views tying them together. Generally 'conservative' is a meaningful label because they act cohesively, like you won't find a self-identified conservative that is disgusted with pro-lifers, but there are American 'liberals' that find each others' views absolutely shocking.

[X S]

Beneficial to whom? You mean the US state?

 

Yes.

 

It has been the beneficiary of both it's geographical position and its long precedent of avoiding European entanglements. For about 175 years of America's existence, Europe was constantly at war with itself, run by monarchies, despots, and hordes of revolutionaries. So for much of America's existence, the "Old World" was not exactly a perfect model of governance.

 

Following WWII, as 3VacSeal mentioned, the red-scare prevented many far-Left agendas from coming to fruition. Being a Communist essentially meant you were an enemy of the state. As the Cold War went on, the US continued to benefit from an economic system that put the it at the forefront of policy-making and Western security, thus benefiting economically and politically. When your nation has the highest GDP, a majority of lawmakers and citizens will definitely be adverse to disruption.

 

 

Speaking as a selfish European, I appreciate the US' large defence budget, because then European states can focus more on welfare than their military. But speaking as a European concerned for Europe and its future, I would wish our governments spent somewhat more on defence. But it's hard to argue while under the protection of the US.

 

I'm glad you mentioned this. I am so sick and tired of the US footing the bill for European and Asian-Pacific defense. I get it, it's an integral part of the US economy and it's hegemonic interests, but at what cost? We've completely over-extended ourselves over 30,000 bases worldwide, which means we're indebted to any scuffle that might occur. I don't advocate isolationism at all, but I would certainly be open to Europe being more proactive with regards to their defense.

 

This is a major impasse in Congress. On the Right, the Republicans don't want to cut defense spending, and on the Left, Democrats don't want to cut government assistance spending. Let's get our sh*t together. Cut the defense budget, or reorganize it so that it's leaner but more effective, and renegotiate a restructured NATO that can effectively counter Russian aggression. Take those proceeds and invest them infrastructure, healthcare, etc. As for the Asian-Pacific, we need to continue to work with China, not contain them. That relationship is like a bad marriage, and it needs therapy. Obama has done a good job with the Chinese, though.

 

 

Because liberals were the left, and were then successful in establishing liberal states. At some point revolutionary socialism popped up to oppose liberalism in more or less the same way liberalism opposed the conservatism of the old regime. So no, the political spectrum is not 'constantly evolving.'

 

See above. The term "liberal" in America has always been pretty consistent with regards to the founding. Liberal simply meant a rejection of the status quo, monarchy, or tyranny. For much of the US's existence, liberal was the centrist position, thanks to Jefferson. It was Andrew Jackson who first redefined its meaning, and it was FDR who further redefined it after the New Deal. Now you essentially have classical and social liberals, but we still refer to agents of change as "liberals". The ideology of the nation has not changed, so how do you suppose we define these two ideas? Should we just call them semi-liberals and loony-liberals? Sorry, but Left/Right, liberal and conservative do just fine when discussing American politics.

 

 

And I literally cannot have a political conversation without being able to refer to the ideology of the state.

 

Right, because America doesn't "get it", I don't care about being misunderstood. Why should I care about their culture or government? They're stupid. Their government is trash. They think they're special. American exceptionalism is for people with a red, white and blue flag shoved up their ass. I don't like you because you like your country, etc., etc., etc.

[Stephan90]

I get it, it's an integral part of the US economy and it's hegemonic interests, but at what cost? We've completely over-extended ourselves over 30,000 bases worldwide, which means we're indebted to any scuffle that might occur.

 

That is what it is all about. Global hegemony and profits for the military industrial complex. So the right consequence would be that you spend less on the military and not that we spend more.

 

The NATO right now is not a defense alliance it is an offense alliance. I don't feel threatened by Russia at all. I think the best solution would be a European only defense alliance. It would result in less global conflicts.

Edited May 8, 2016 by Stephan90

[Tyler]

I don't feel threatened by Russia at all.

I hate to be that guy, but you wouldn't be saying this if NATO was out of the picture. Russia has always sought to establish an array of buffer from Western Europeans to its heartland. So far the only check on that ambition has been internationalist intervention. Do you honestly believe places like Poland and the Baltic States would have sovereignty without American interest? To spin that from a different angle: when has Western Europe ever gone against the interests of stability to aid independence for people generally under the rule of Russia (be it under the empire or USSR) for the sole reason of helping Latvians or Poles maintain autonomy?

 

I can think of key moments in history where Russian borders were significantly pushed back, but those events took astronomical timing, competence, and coincidence, as well as figures who wholly earn their titles as historic leaders of their respective nation. The more common story seems to be that Europeans put up with (or are unable to do anything to stem) Russian imperialism, as long as Russia isn't occupying half of Berlin.

[sivispacem]

It's mind-boggling. You literally have Russia annexing chunks of other sovereign states and openly speaking about reinstating a Russian Empire. Some people really do live in a fantasy world. I mean, Russia still maintains an Oblast in what used to be East Prussia.

[Svip]

I'd love to quip that Britain still maintains Gibraltar that used to be part of Spain, but it's not really comparable.

[GTA_stu]

They're pretty much identical situations, it's just 1 has existed longer. They were both taken during wars to act as strategic exclaves. Who would it even be returned to? It was German territory but the Germans were expelled. Surely if Russia should return Kaliningrad then Poland should return much of the territory east of the Oder.

[Clem Fandango]

See above. The term "liberal" in America has always been pretty consistent with regards to the founding. Liberal simply meant a rejection of the status quo, monarchy, or tyranny. For much of the US's existence, liberal was the centrist position, thanks to Jefferson.

Nah it's a specific ideological viewpoint. 'Liberalism' meant a shift to individualism, away from aristocratic and church power.

 

 

 

 

Now you essentially have classical and social liberals, but we still refer to agents of change as "liberals". The ideology of the nation has not changed, so how do you suppose we define these two ideas? Should we just call them semi-liberals and loony-liberals?

You should call them nothing because as I've explained repeatedly and in painful detail, the term is too broad. You should call them 'social democrats' if they're radical enough reformers, but that is not the majority of people who are called 'liberal.'

 

 

 

Right, because America doesn't "get it", I don't care about being misunderstood. Why should I care about their culture or government? They're stupid. Their government is trash. They think they're special. American exceptionalism is for people with a red, white and blue flag shoved up their ass. I don't like you because you like your country, etc., etc., etc.

I mean American exceptionalism is an expression of extreme nationalism.

 

It's not an issue of respect for a foreign culture, because as I've told you like ten f*cking times: the terms cannot be used in a thoughtful discussion, they don't come up and don't make any sense.

[X S]

With regards to Left and Right, both the Democrats and Republicans traditionally sit on the left and right side of the aisle, respectively, in the House and Senate chambers. Both the House and Senate chamber maps are organized this way. This is why only one side of the aisle applauds when contentious issues are addressed during a State of the Union speech. So there's still some traditional aspects to it with regards to where they actually sit and when we refer to the Left and Right in America.

 

And to be honest, defining liberal in the US is as simple as opening a dictionary.

 

liberal

adjective lib·er·al \ˈli-b(ə-)rəl\

: believing that government should be active in supporting social and political change

: not opposed to new ideas or ways of behaving that are not traditional or widely accepted

 

This is applicable to the Democratic party of the United States.

 

But honestly, I'm done with this conversation.

Edited May 9, 2016 by X S

[Clem Fandango]

Good, I was tired of watching you fail to address any of my points.

[unopescio]

it doesn't mean anything, we're a year away from the vote still.

 

much aside from the fact that Trump cannot win a national election, he won't even get the nomination.

this happens every election cycle. new guys shoot to the top of the polls then trail off before the inevitable candidates settle down.

 

Oh if only. All bets are off at this point, time to sit back and watch as the US tears itself apart. Trump is only a second night of the long knives away from becoming supreme leader of the American people.

[Abel.]

Communists don't make presidential bids, because they don't support the state. This is my issue: that you are incapable of even fathoming a conception of social change that doesn't involve the state.

To be fair Mel this way of thinking is ingrained into the social fabric of the West now. The number of comfortable people has reached a critical mass, and the less comfortable don't realise improvements could be made as they have Netflix, cheap junk food and a job which sucks their life dry. That's not to demean the working man, but when I did construction for extra cash I was so knackered after a day of work I could barely look at a book let alone organise some worker's collective and abolish the state.

 

Personally I'm also not one who wants to abolish the state. A state for most people just means centralisation and stability. What political form the state takes is a different question. The problem I see with the US is that the government system is unwieldy and at the mercy of myriad factors which don't translate well to serving the people. As such it's ill-equipped to really serve the populace. The actual principles of the American state are decent though.

 

There's also a tendency towards lethargy in many Western states. The UK drags on with Conservatives (whom I voted for at the recent elections due to the madness of Corbyn), and Israel drags on with the Likud because Labour's seen as weak. People are afraid of change right now, and I don't blame them.

 

I mean American exceptionalism is an expression of extreme nationalism.

The problem with this is that America is exceptional. Obviously there are other Great Powers in the world, but the influence and power wielded by the US has become absolutely staggering since the end of WW2. I support the US as I support the West, but I wouldn't want to live in America or anything and I'm certainly not an American nationalist. I just accept that America is a special case in the world.

 

The US is such a massive, diverse country that it's nigh-on impossible to please everyone. Republicans talk of securing American jobs, but they also hold up the free market and deregulation as pillars of American freedom, which automatically remove American jobs as the nation's economy progresses. It's a worrying contradiction which also manifests itself here. At the same time I don't like to see the traditional voter base of the US derided as it is as it just makes liberals come off as petty. By all means ridicule the extremes (conservatives love ripping into the loony left), but it's no good to paint vast swathes of people as slack-jawed racists when many of them are just people whose families have always worked in industry or in the military and have been massively let down in terms of education. The bottom line is that secure employment used to be basically a given if you were willing to graft enough, but now any halfway decent job requires either a degree, extensive training or both. Despite this it's still extremely expensive to get a decent degree in the US, and the housing market remains excruciating.

 

 

If there's any sort of socialist(ish) policy I'd want in the US/UK would be more standardised training schemes for people not going to university. If you're not deemed good enough for a degree there must be meaningful training schemes for you in areas like basic programming for council databases, or a push to get more people in the army. The mentality of "work hard, get a job, get a house, get married" remains, but the free market has pushed reality towards "become rampantly overqualified, accrue massive debt, take many interviews, hopefully get a job...". Also more shared housing. I find it remarkable how much of a nightmare getting decent housing can be. Privately owned houses can be a real issue as you're at the mercy of a landlord and unreliable housemates, not to mention the exorbitant costs involved. It's hard to get on the property ladder if you're at the mercy of debts and contracts as well.

Edited May 9, 2016 by Failure

[Spaghetti Cat]

^Gawd, why do we have to have this conversation every 10 pages or so. Anyways...

 

 

 

The US has basically benefited from being in an advantageous position following WWII, and thus there has been little reason for the political establishment to shift in any other direction other than to satisfy Europeans and their modern interpretations of the Left and collectivist ideas.

Beneficial to whom? You mean the US state? Probably in the terms of influence. US companies? Sounds probable. But US citizens? Hardly. An enormous fraction of US federal spending is spent on defending or engaging in foreign affairs, that only slightly or not at all affect the lives of most Americans.

 

 

That enormous fraction is 16%.

 

 

While SS, Medicare, Medicaid, and Obamacare account for 50% of spending. Even our welfare state kicks Europe's ass. Anybody want claim were not re-distrubuting wealth?

[sivispacem]

Even our welfare state kicks Europe's ass.

Is that 24% a total share of the federal budget, IE taking into account the costs of operating federally administered welfare programmes (staffing, operating offices and other general expenses)? Because here in the UK we spend 23% of our government budget on welfare directly- all the other costs come straight out of an entirely different budget. So if we're going to do an apples to apples comparison, let's establish what each covers.

 

I'd be very interested to see the effective rate of return, if you will, on US welfare spending. That is, what proportion of the welfare budget actually ends up in the hands of citizen recipients. The rate of return for expenditure in the US healthcare sector is quite poor in comparison with many European countries operating free at the point of access puboic healthcare systems. That is, the US spends more per capita on healthcare than many European states for a significantly worse general level of care.

 

Also 16% spent directly on the military budget is considerably more than most other nations. Per capita, the US has amongst the highest defence spending in the world. Only Saudi Arabia, Russia a selection of developing nations top that.

[Spaghetti Cat]

That largest % of spending (24%) is just for Social Security i.e. retirement and disabilities.

 

Here's a better breakdown:

 

 

 

 

 

 

SO about a Trillion on Healthcare compared to about half a Trillion to the DoD. But what's a couple billion between friends?

[sivispacem]

That largest % of spending (24%) is just for Social Security i.e. retirement and disabilities.

As far as I can tell, the figure is the agency budget, rather than the actual sum spent directly on welfare.

 

[Stephan90]

They are really ripping you of with some of these toys like the F-35. The whole program costs 1.5 trillion dollars. You won't gain anything from it during your limited lifetime. But they are playing this agenda very well with evoking patriotic feelings in the Americans as if the military would fulfill a self purpose, making people proud.

[sivispacem]

The F-35 programme is a farce, and that's coming from someone who loves fast jets.

[Spaghetti Cat]

Sivis: If you are looking for welfare i.e. Food Stamps and the like, that would be in the 'Non-Defense Discretionary' spending. There is Social Security Disability which is separate from the Social Security Retirement program. That may be where the misunderstanding is. My point was that defense spending only accounts for 16% of the budget where social spending is much much higher.

 

 

re F-35: The Trillion dollar figure accounts for the entire life of the program. I believe it's about 50 years, but could be wrong. I can agree that there is a lot of waste in that particular program, at least in the initial phases, but it doesn't compare to the waste in the social services (SS, Medicare, Medicaid). We should all agree that waste and corporate welfare should be held to the lowest possible level. BTW: the -35 is going to be an awesome aircraft, not only for the US, but for the UK, Israel, Japan, Australia, etc.

[E.A.B.]

 

As for its effectiveness

As for its effectiveness we just have to remember John Oliver's rant: http://www.vox.com/2016/3/21/11275300/john-oliver-trump-wall-last-week-tonight

 

 

John Oliver....on Vox

 

I counter with a Glenn Beck rant on Fox News

 

 

Not even touching on the fact that immigration is by and large beneficial to the US economy, and the economic benefit (as opposed to ludicrous costs of any wall) of creating better and easier paths to citizenships for undocumented workers.

 

I want some substantive studies on this. I'm not doubting you, but I also don't agree with you. I'm saying that I want several studies outlying if illegal immigration is a net loss or gain for the US economy. I can see how cheap labor is a gain for seasonal industries in agriculture taking the savings to the customer. At the same time I also know that schools become further overcrowded with more people coming in that don't pay property taxes, which iirc is how schools get their funding (might be different on the state level; correct me if I'm wrong). I also know that social services are strained the more people that are on them. Like I said, I'd really like conclusive studies on this, or at least multiple studies from different sources.

 

My family came here illegally and got Reagan's amnesty. When they originally came here it was to work, and none have ever been on public assistance. Now they all have middle class families and own their own homes, if not multiple ones (construction pays well). But that's not the average illegal immigrant story, so I'd like some stats.

 

 

Except none of his points really address the problem at all, instead treating only the symptoms. All I see is punishment, punishment and more punishment. Instead of looking at the reasons why people immigrate illegally, it just treats the whole thing in a "we just need to punish them harder" way.

 

I don't see how else you handle a crime other than punishment. Mexico has mandatory prison sentences, we just send them back to their country of origin and give them a stern warning not to come back.

 

Hint: it never works.

 

This isn't even about illegal immigration to me at this point, it's that this nation has such laughable ''laws'' that are treated more as ''recommendations'' and are never actually enforced. It's like jaywalking laws at this point. Boy if you break this law I'll be really upset! It's so ridiculous, and as someone that works in the law (hopefully) it really irritates me.

 

 

But no, f*ck, he's even saying to remove citizenship by birthright. Which is hilarious since America was founded by immigrants. Illegal ones at that, since the Native Americans were the real citizens of the land.

 

Agreed that birthright citizenship removal is ridiculous, but the reason he brings that up is because you can have a child here and immediately have the moral argument that you should be allowed to stay. To say that there isn't a real issue of birthright citizenship being a sort of ''loophole'' for illegal immigration is disingenuous. IIRC China has actual birth tourism with people having kids in the states.

 

As for Native Americans and real citizenry, that's false. The United States as an entity did not exist before it's creation by European migrants to this land, it was established after taking over the land gradually over several centuries. Native Americans were never ''citizens'' of the United States because such a nation never existed and they had no conception of the entire Northern American portion of the Hemisphere being a nation.

 

If you're gonna argue that the land was ''taken'' then you're going to have to argue against every nation ever created through warfare since the dawn of civilization. I always found the, ''this land was taken'' argument to be complete leftist hogwash. Tell me what land WASN'T taken through warfare, including Aztec lands. If the Europeans were the first to 'take' land then you are right

 

but they weren't. Everyone is guilty of this and to suddenly throw moral guilt onto a people is ridiculous when the victims themselves are also guilty of this.

 

 

They have indeed been cast aside. But they weren’t thrown aside by either the Democrats or the Republicans single-handedly. They were thrown aside by a modernized labor market…a market that is worshiped by the free-market fundamentalist in the Republican party until it performs to their detriment. Why would you pay an American to do the same job for 2 or 3 times the cost? American labor ensures quality perhaps, but more frequently in the case of "skilled" labor.

 

I hate when people talk about globalization and free markets and forget to mention that the consumer benefits greatly from reduced prices. White blue collar working class voters have a hard time not because of free market ''fundamentalism'', but because of a changing economy.

 

You can tariff everything in every market and ensure that Americans do every single job in the economy, to the detriment of the trade and exchange of goods globally (and human progress that comes from said exchange) and the consumers disposable income. This isn't anything new. Income Substitution Industrialization is an old mid-20th century economic philosophy that has utterly failed. It leads to inferior consumer products, a nations GDP only growing as large as it's nations borders extend, and massive turmoil when said nation finally decides to trade globally in order to expand. In lower income nations the issue is that it's much more beneficial to compete where they have an advantage, such as low level manufacturing. In higher income nations their economies are better geared towards areas where they have competetive advantages in, such as higher tech, entertainment, medicinal progress, etc (all areas the us has advantages in globally and has trade deals to its benefit).

 

The US dollar is strong which means increased wages and standards of living. Globalism didn't destroy American manufacturing, rising wages did. What globalism did do is make it cheaper for American consumers to have all manner of technological equipment which means even the poor have all sorts of gizmos in their pockets, meaning more people benefit from technological progress and that seeps its way into all manner of life. Imagine the internet if only upper class rich predominantly white people inhabited it. Where would our black memes come from?

 

The problem is you have a massive portion of the US populace that is trying to compete in industries it has no business competing in.

 

 

I must admit, if Trump stated he would legalize marijuana (likely with no intent to do so), then he could scoop a nice chunk of young voters. It could also backfire because he'd lose some Republicans.

 

He wouldn't lose libertarians, which is what most young Republicans tend to be (myself included). The thing about Trump is that he's won the evangelical vote over Cruz, who was a hardcore conservative on social issues. So perhaps some of the conventional beliefs about the Republican demographic are wrong, since Trump is actually a fairly social liberal. Yet still beat Cruz in his own backyard (the south and bible belt).

 

 

Substantive criticism? You mean like how the founder’s slave ownership impairs their credibility when crafting a document about freedom and independence?

 

He didn't state that, but that's fair (even though he could've been implying it). You forgot the part where voting rights extended only to white property owning males.

 

If it's about credibility then sure. I'm still not willing to throw away enlightenment philosophy because of character flaws though.

 

 

Diablo's generalization was a bit hasty, but today's conservatives are the ones to blame for that caricature. Instead of being people who advocate civil liberties and focus on conserving institutions they consider good, they just rage at modernity, progress and social movements. What the hell does that have to do with conservatism? That's being reactionary, plain and simple. Michael Oakeshott was a conservative; people like Trump are just lunatics.

 

Well, Trump isn't a conservative

 

Trump is FAR from a conservative. That's the whole reason why there's a ''nevertrump'' movement. Or was, rather.

 

As for conservatism, I honestly believe part of it has to do with the successful portrayal the American Left has done to the right. ''Intellectual'' voices on the right never disappeared or diminished, the left has just successfully portrayed the right as being devoid of thought. I've never bought the argument that either political side is just outright stupid. People are rational beings and they make claims based on perception and analysis, no matter how sloppy.

 

Take abortion, for example. The DNC is really good at playing up identity politics and has successfully made it a 'women's rights issue' despite many women like my mother being opposed to abortion. When you can make an issue an identity issue you can more easily call the other side of the isle racist and sexist. The question is what your definition of life is and if you believe all life is protected under our legal apparatus then abortion could legally be seen as murder depending on your conception of human life. The question is when life ''begins'', and part of the populace against abortion are Christians, but that doesn't immediately make legitimate arguments about life null and void. Then there's border protection which is somehow racist despite every nation having borders.

 

You could easily generalize the left as young college leftists in safe spaces arguing for the utopian, but no one seems to make that generalization and it doesn't take hold as fiercely in the culture for some reason. They're seen as 'idealistic youth fighting for what's right'.

 

If you are a right leaning person then odds are you don't see most of the generalizations as correct because you actually see the argument and understand the positions enough to see why the argument coming from your side of the aisle is rational.